One statement invalidates everything he says? No problem, if that is the case for you. To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong, maybe I just have a better crap filter.

Nah, that's just one example. His idiotic statements are many. I rarely read his reviews, but whenever I come across one, there's always some highly misinformed opinion that he's trying to pass off as fact. He's a blogger, so my expectations of his reporting ability are quite low.

Quote

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

If you base someone's credibility on how they rank on a Google search, then I suppose Ken is an expert. I don't care enough about Ken to dislike him. He's more of a comedy show than anything else. It's just a shame when people take his comments as if they're facts.

To me 90% of what I see on the internet (and by proxy what people generally say) is drivel or wrong

Sure he gets hits on his site and his ad revenue is enough to live off of depending on his lifestyle (while still asking for handouts), but it's because he's a clown and not because he's a reputable figure in photography. Besides, his success was never in question. Although, if his goal was to be a successful d-bag, then good for him. He made it.

You're right about one thing in that quote though - he's "like" a photographer. He's not a photographer, but to the uninformed he's obviously like one. He's been seen with a camera on occasion...

And unbiased? Dear God!

I honestly didn't realise it was possible to be as gullible as some of the people on here bigging up this pointless, irrelevant waste of bandwidth, but I suppose that's how he makes a living from that godawful abortion of a website: as the saying goes, there's one born every minute.

How does anyone "learn" from his website? Most people would get more from an icepick in the ear than from his - and I use the word ironically - "wisdom".

Quote

If you don't know much about art theory and composition, his site is invaluable.

Hah! If you look at what he does and then do the exact opposite, you might have a point.

He's a talentless sphincter, and you would do well to learn that about him.

takoman46

And he consistently has one of the top hits in Goog searches. Seems to be doing something right, even if Real Photographers don't like him.

FYI, and this is factual: Google search results are ranked in order of how well connected a given web site is to the rest of the internet in relationship to other websites that contain the same key words from a google search. What this means is that the top search hits using the Google search engine are ordered according to the number of hyperlinks that a web site contains linking it to other sites as well as the number of hyperlinks on other web sites that link to said web site. This has no bearing on relevance of content or credibility of content. Also, another way to get on the top search results is to be a sponsored web site. In other words, you can create your own website and have very little unique visitor traffic or hyperlinks and pay google a sum of money to place you at the top of the list for given key word searches. There is currently no technology that Google or any other search engine employs that is able to intelligently recognize and prioritize search results on the internet.

You guys entirely have the wrong idea. You obsess about the little details of what he says and miss the bigger picture. People like him are good to listen to - you'll get ideas and see things in a way differently from anybody else. Maybe you only use a little of what he says, maybe nothing, but maybe it gets you to think differently and see photography from a different viewpoint for a while.

For example, last week I came across his articles about wide angle lenses and tripods. First on tripods, since then I've been really thinking - why do I carry a tripod around? Is it really necessary? Am I over using it, under using it? On wide angles - which I've always preferred - these are the first articles that I've found which talked the same reasons about why I like them.

People that say controversial things are more interesting than most, and at best you'll learn something new, and at worst you'll be entertained.

I do think you need to give Ken his due that a small part of the content of his site offers some decent (if rather basic) advice, even this decent advice is often hurt by his frequent desent into hyperbole though.

Most of his site though seems to be made up of either blantant untruths and/or highly contradictory articles, one moment he's advising than an S95 is all the camera anyone needs, the next he's carping on about film as "the real raw".

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.

I guess part of the hate is based on his blunt but obviously very successful family marketing and that he seems to be doing well as a rich amateur who has nothing to do than review top gear and state his opinion - a job that most people envy, including me.

When I re-discovered photography, I found his website to be helpful because it's *not* full of the global "get expensive L glass and full frame" advice easily given elsewhere. And I like his "Is it worth it?" and "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" pages. The latter is the often mistaken reason for him finding mid-range zooms boring, including me.

My 2 cents: If he gets things wrong in the technical department - and people often complain but seldom give examples - he's forgiven for the general insight "the picture matters" and because I'd never make a purchase decision based on one review anyway.

The negativity around him is I'd guess mostly based on the fact that he's good at talking just enough sense to lure in the unwary and then influence there choices of buying very expensive equipment(lets be honiest even entry level SLR's far into this catagory for most people) in an often dishoniest fashion.

I guess part of the hate is based on his blunt but obviously very successful family marketing and that he seems to be doing well as a rich amateur who has nothing to do than review top gear and state his opinion - a job that most people envy, including me.

When I re-discovered photography, I found his website to be helpful because it's *not* full of the global "get expensive L glass and full frame" advice easily given elsewhere. And I like his "Is it worth it?" and "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" pages. The latter is the often mistaken reason for him finding mid-range zooms boring, including me.

My 2 cents: If he gets things wrong in the technical department - and people often complain but seldom give examples - he's forgiven for the general insight "the picture matters" and because I'd never make a purchase decision based on one review anyway.

I agree the "ultrawide is not for taking it all in" article is a very nice introduction indeed, I found it helpful after I bought my first UWA and I'v read many others who thought the same. I actually somewhat agree with him about screw in grads, obviously they have there limations(that he fails to acknowledge) but for many users I do think a 2 stop screw in will cover most of their needs.

The problem is that more often than not he has to push home his point with needless hyperbole so that rather than looking to advise people on the equipment thats best for there needs he just hammers home one option.

At a more advanced level though he often slips into blatant dishoniesty, the resolution of scanned 35mm stands out as very much in oposition to both my own expereince and everything else I'v read for example or indeed several Nikon lenses such as the 16-35mm or the 28-300mm.